someonelse:snocone: Why not, facts is facts.Derp is derp.Try to sort them out, plz.

I suggest you apply that to your Winter Soldier rant. Because that there thing you posted was full of derp.

Well, agree to disagree since it "don' mean a thing".

Lesson is the government knows you are too stupid and apathetic to do ANYTHING about it.This token front person idiot, this war mongering campaign is a carbon copy of the last and the last and the last and the last,,stop the farking dog from getting wagged

Bontesla:UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

USP .45:"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Constitutional scholar, time traveler, Barack Obama

[299x299 from http://i.imgur.com/8sUiXsx.jpg image 299x299]

He certainly does not. BUT that does not keep his boss(s) from doing it. From 1%ville, there is no Constitution.

UrukHaiGuyz:Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

UrukHaiGuyz:Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

Bontesla:UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

Bontesla:UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

Well what are you saying, exactly? We should intervene to fight Assad...but make sure he retains control? You lost me.

If we don't pick the winners, you get a big nasty mess of a proxy fight, and then years of chaos a la Lebanon. Should Damascus become the new Beirut? What outcome are you looking for?

sign_of_Zeta:Amos Quito: It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.

You know, if false flag attacks happened every time someone said there was a false flag attack, then anytime anything bad happened it would be the secret plan of an New World Ord... oh yeah, sometimes I forget people actually believe that...

You know, there is a chance it wasn't Assad. If the evidence says it wasn't, then of course we shouldn't act. However, I wouldn't really listen to people like Alex Jones and take their word for Gospel... people do have their own agendas you know, not just the government.

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

snocone:Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

We?Who do you think is "we"?

/btw, everyone is the loser in this game, don't play

Everyone is a loser regardless of playing. Being a loser is a terrible reason not to play. There are far better ones.

Mr. Right:American foreign policy has been in a shambles for a long time. Normally a country will try to promote a foreign policy that is in its own best interests. I can't remember an Administration since Kennedy that had a clear idea of what that is.

Hmm, who showed up in American politics and brought to us the idea of Realpolitik?

UrukHaiGuyz:Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

Well what are you saying, exactly? We should intervene to fight Assad...but make sure he retains control? You lost me.

If we don't pick the winners, you get a big nasty mess of a proxy fight, and then years of chaos a la Lebanon. Should Damascus become the new Beirut? What outcome are you looking for?

I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

COINCIDENTALLY, a massive chemical weapon is detonated on August 21, on the outskirts of where? DAMASCUS.

AND CURIOUSLY the US and Israel seemed to know IMMEDIATELY that there HAD been a CW attack, AND blamed AssadCo.

Hmmmm... it's almost like a completely logical explanation could be that Assad was trying to attack rebel forces at DAMASCUS and that when he used gas in DAMASCUS he miscalculated what the international response would be about DAMASCUS.

Quick question for your series of events... why would the Assad government not allow UN inspectors to examine the area right away?

Apik0r0s:Mr. Right: American foreign policy has been in a shambles for a long time. Normally a country will try to promote a foreign policy that is in its own best interests. I can't remember an Administration since Kennedy that had a clear idea of what that is.

Hmm, who showed up in American politics and brought to us the idea of Realpolitik?

[479x577 from http://www.whale.to/b/kissinger9.jpg image 479x577]

It's been downhill ever since.

This is The Oil Age.Combine that amount of fungible revenue with absent landlords to get the perfect amoral storm of Get It All Now.

I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

It's not impossible. It's about creating the right strategy.

That's a nice thought, but realistically impractical. There's not enough good will on either side to be pacified by international peacekeepers. And there's no way Assad allows international troops in the first place without fighting them. These high-minded ideals of just putting everybody in timeout til they work out differences are not based in reality. Either we don't go in, or we do, but it's crazy to think there's a nonviolent way to intervene outside of humanitarian aid for refugees.

Bontesla:I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

lockers:Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

You are right, there is almost a guarantee that our actions would end up killing some innocent people unintentionally. The order of magnitude would be completely different if it's proven that Assad is using gas to kill rebels and civilians indiscriminately. Guess what? The world is not black and white. We will have some blood on our hands no matter what we do or don't do. The question is just how much.

I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

It's not impossible. It's about creating the right strategy.

That's a nice thought, but realistically impractical. There's not enough good will on either side to be pacified by international peacekeepers. And there's no way Assad allows international troops in the first place without fighting them. These high-minded ideals of just putting everybody in timeout til they work out differences are not based in reality. Either we don't go in, or we do, but it's crazy to think there's a nonviolent way to intervene outside of humanitarian aid for refugees.

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting international, either.

I'm also not entrusting either side to be reasonable. Look at the mess they've created?

I'm suggesting that we pause for a brief moment and spitball ideas. What do we have to lose?

PainfulItching:Whodat: We should let the UN carry the load on this one. It is about time they started doing something. If they don't, can't or won't then screw it.

The US it part of the UN. So the US would be part of a UN response. If US personnel are part of a UN response, like Bosnia, what then?

By carry the load I mean that the UN should be in the front of this with only forces assigned to the UN engaging in the issue. The US should not be the first line or the major arms in what is for all intents and purposes a civil war.

Bontesla:lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.

Why is the presumption that it will end well if we do? Both sides are anti-western. The only thing we accomplish by getting involved is getting blood on our hands. If you have a crisis of conscience about it, your in the distinct minority. Americans don't want it. Syrians don't want it. The UN doesn't want it. For fark sake, if you can't even convince the UN to do a peacekeeping mission then just drop all pretense this is about chemical weapons. This is about war-profiteering for american companys.

Amos Quito:sign_of_Zeta: Amos Quito: It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.

You know, if false flag attacks happened every time someone said there was a false flag attack, then anytime anything bad happened it would be the secret plan of an New World Ord... oh yeah, sometimes I forget people actually believe that...

You know, there is a chance it wasn't Assad. If the evidence says it wasn't, then of course we shouldn't act. However, I wouldn't really listen to people like Alex Jones and take their word for Gospel... people do have their own agendas you know, not just the government.

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

lockers:Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.

Amos Quito:fireclown: So, the use of chemical weapons in plain sight is to go unpunished? I'm for staying out of this gorram mess too, but we should discuss the outcome of that action.

It seems clear that chemical weapons were used - the question is by who?g

Wanted to give you credit where it is due for apparently changing your mind on the issue of whether chemical weapons were used. My recollection is that you were still skeptical on this point a few days ago.

And to flatter you further, I am going to repost here something I posted on an earlier thread. Another page from your playbook.

For those of you who say that the Syrian government would be above using chemical weapons in this war, I thought I'd leave this here. It's a story about an attack by Syrian government forces on a place called Saraqeb, near Aleppo in northern Syria, on April 29 of this year. Local people claimed that during the attack, personnel in a government helicopter dropped bombs that contained a poisonous gas. Eight local people were taken to a nearby hospital around this time, all apparently suffering from nausea and breathing problems. One of them died.

There was a followup to this. Blood and urine samples from five of the hospital patients were taken to a lab maintained by the DGA, the French military's arms-buying office. Chemists in the lab said that the results of their tests indicated the presence of sarin in the urine of one patient and in the blood of two others. I can't find this story in English, so everyone please pardon my French. I'll translate.

"The samples taken after the attack on April 29 by a government helicopter in Saraqeb (Idlib province), in the northern part of the country, are more probative. Metabolized sarin was identified in the urine of one victim, and regenerated sarin (that is to say, in its pure state) was identified in the blood of two of the other victims, in once case at a high level of concentration (9.5 nanograms per milliliter)

Bontesla:lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.

What solution? You just keep mouth farting about sending people to imaginary rooms.

lockers:Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.

Why is the presumption that it will end well if we do? Both sides are anti-western. The only thing we accomplish by getting involved is getting blood on our hands. If you have a crisis of conscience about it, your in the distinct minority. Americans don't want it. Syrians don't want it. The UN doesn't want it. For fark sake, if you can't even convince the UN to do a peacekeeping mission then just drop all pretense this is about chemical weapons. This is about war-profiteering for american companys.

I define something that doesn't end in genocide as a better option when compared to something that does end in genocide.

tirob:For those of you who say that the Syrian government would be above using chemical weapons in this war, I thought I'd leave this here. It's a story about an attack by Syrian government forces on a place called Saraqeb, near Aleppo in northern Syria, on April 29 of this year.

Ned Stark:Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.

What solution? You just keep mouth farting about sending people to imaginary rooms.

No. I keep talking about pausing for a moment to discuss alternatives.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers:Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.

I don't want us involved either... but I think it isn't the rebels we are boo hoo-ing about. It is the innocent civilians, the mothers, fathers and children, that lack an advocate for their well-being.

Yea, that does suck; it's unfortunate -- but its not our role to overthrow every evil dictator.

Bontesla:I define something that doesn't end in genocide as a better option when compared to something that does end in genocide.

This isn't genocide. This is a civil war. Kosovo was a genocide. Rowanda was a genocide. That is one faction using force on a different non-fighting faction. This is two armed forces fighting for control of a country. Both of those forces loath the west. So you can pick who your going to help kill the other, but neither will be thankful, nor will it stop civilians from being caught in the middle. Your silly idea of stopping a civil war borders on willfully ignorant. There is zero upside from getting involved.

sign_of_Zeta:You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

I suppose you are ready to donate your entire paycheck to the cause and then suit up to go over there to kick some ass. No? Then STFU.

You are no different than the European assholes who are talking big but won't back it up. It is pretty easy to give up lives and money when they aren't your own.

UrukHaiGuyz:TheDirtyNacho: UrukHaiGuyz: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.

*scoff* "Our Country". Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else. Humans are humans. Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.

Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.

Balls and tenacity aren't factors. If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.

The same is true about the population at large. After all, we vote them in and "the government" is composed of everyday people. Tribalism is a feature of the current stage of human development. If "they" aren't part of our tribe, fark 'em.

We don't even care about own tribe at this point. What the f*ck is the point of all this retarded nationalistic wank-fest if we still let our own die in the street of hunger, violence and preventable disease?

Same basic thing except divisions are among social classes. A family of two can be a tribe. In an earlier era, these mental delineations were probably a good thing for survival in the wild. Now it's a solid component of ill will and human suffering.

UrukHaiGuyz:Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Magorn:Marcus Aurelius: Magorn: Assad would lose the capability of waging offense war and force the civil to a negotiated end

If you fracture the Assad regime, there is nothing to hold what's left of the country's political order in one piece. It would be every faction for themselves. The situation would deteriorate much like Iraq, with each tribal group battling over their territory. It could last decades.

Probably true. But would that necesarily be a bad thing or at least the worst thing? We'd all like a peaceful transition from dictator to democracy, but even Egypt who arguably had the best shot at it, doesn't seem to have made that work. Iraq is a bloody, dysfunctional mess, but there are signs that a nascent multi-ethnic democracy may be emerging from the chaos, even if it takes decades of factional fighting to fully gel. If the "post-Assad" civil war is inevitable sooner or later, is thee an argument to be made for sooner?

I would look at Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and other mid East countries as evidence that a military coup is always a possibility, and that a dictator is about the only thing that can provide national cohesion. The exception is Turkey, and their military is ready to take over from Erdogan at the drop of a hat.